Long Range Facilities Plan Public Consultation

Attended the LRFP open house at Bridge on June 1. Good display of info boards and attendance of trustees/board reps to speak to and answer questions. Perhaps some info could be provided regarding future timeline -- assuming board approval of LRFP this month, what are next steps and projected schedule to final implementation of school closures, boundary changes, seismic upgrades...

Thank you for offering this opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I noticed that one other contributor suggested implementation of middle schools (junior high) and I wanted to comment on that.

I believe that research shows that grouping children together during those tumultuous tween and early teen years has a negative impact on their behaviour and learning environment. The social drama that makes these years so challenging for some kids is only magnified in a junior high school environment when there are no other aged students to help keep their world in perspective. One of the things that the SD38 school communities do so well is teaching social responsibility. Offering Grade 6 and 7 students the opportunity to mentor younger students is a valuable learning experience. Likewise, the older high school students have the opportunity to mentor Grade 8 and 9 students to help them adjust to life in high school. In my experience, having my daughter start high school in Grade 8 was great. Through extracurricular activities she developed friendships with students of all ages which had many benefits for her and the whole community.

Richmond has many exceptionally well socialized students who are helping to create productive learning atmospheres in many of our schools. We should build on this strength to learn from the healthy schools how to help heal any that are having social problems.

I'm sorry that this does not provide much guidance on facilities other than to strongly urge you not to implement junior high schools.

Thank you!

Taking in to account longer term child location projections, the city should build purpose built larger schools in key areas, along with well managed pickup/drop off zones. French immersion based at each location along with early childhood centres (refer to VSB/CoV) would be ideal.

Existing locations - retain ownership where possible or find suitable community ways to utilise existing locations.

If you have specialty programs (Montessori or French), too full or busting at the seems, slowly, gradually phase them out, while phasing them in at an empty school. Then parents have the choice to stay close to home, or keep the specialty program for younger siblings. It seems to me you have too many kids in central Richmond, and not enough kids in areas with empty Monster houses like West Richmond. Send the kids to the empty schools. Draw them in with an outdoor Nature Program in West Richmond, use a school like Gilmore/Dixon that isn't safe to be in and is right beside the dyke and has an under cover area built in. Surrey, Langley, and beyond have had outdoor programs for 2-3 years now. Why doesn't Richmond? You save money on ALL classroom and building expenses. There are now two preschool programs that are busting at the seems.

Make the changes at 1-2 schools at a time not so you can see the impact. Pick the emptiest schools, so you can see the impact. Check to see if/which schools with Specialty Progrmas actually have kids that live in the area going there. Target ones that have kids and parents in cars already.

I strongly believe that moving the FI program from McRoberts to Palmer creating a single FI secondary would be beneficial to the students. It would encourage students to study and improve their language skills if they are surrounded by peers who also have that skill. I imagine there would be French cultural activities and an emphasis on bilingualism. Contrary to other commenters, some FI parents are already driving their kids to schools as the catchment elementary boundaries forces them to do that already. By the time secondary school rolls around, the kids are in grade 8 and should be more than capable to commute. Palmer is very central to Richmond as well and there are many ways to get there. I believe this is a good move by the school board.

Thank you for providing what seems to be a transparent consultation process. I attended the open house and most of my questions were addressed. However I wanted to submit some more specific concerns regarding school closures in Richmond.
The rationale behind closing/consolidating schools is clear. Many parents would agree that students in every school deserve access to the same programs, courses and extracurricular activities. For this reason, I disagree with creating single track French immersion schools. It is essential to make our French immersion programs accessible to all families. There are some significant consequences of segregating the French program. First, parents will be forced to drive (or drive their kids further) in order to access the French program. Contrary to what some trustees feel, French immersion parents would not be willing to drive across the city. Not all French immersion parents have the means to do this, possibly because they do not have a vehicle, would struggle with childcare issues or finances. As a result of these challenges, the French immersion program would only be accessible to those parents who could afford to drive their children to school and who would have the time to do so. The French program must be accessible to families from all backgrounds and in order to do this, French must be offered throughout the city not just in a few designated schools. In addition, segregating English from French really sends the wrong message to our students. Having two languages being taught under one roof reinforces the importance of celebrating cultural diversity and inclusion. Segregation would go against this.
I also ask the board to consider spending more time educating the public as to the negative effects of having half empty schools on the students and the city and also highlight the benefits of building larger modern schools to accommodate the amalgamation of schools.

Could the district consider introducing middle schools to relieve some of the space challenges? Other Districts have K-5, 6-8, 9-12 or similar models. I do not like the 7-12 option and I think even 8-12 is a large spread for students.

I believe it’s comletely fiscally irresponsible to keep Sea Island open at the low enrolment Numbers they have and are projecting. Rather than busing them to Brighouse which is already close to or at capacity, does it not make sense to bus them to Thompson or McKay which really aren’t much further?

And what about the option of creating a 100% French Immersion School in a central location rather than dual or triple track?

The district should move the French immersions programs from McRoberts to nearby Palmer secondary school given the following reasons and rationales:
1) Palmer secondary school is located near the growing urban centre of Richmond's high rise area, so it is anticipated that growing needs for the French immersion programs will be occurred around Palmer catchment area.

2) As Palmer secondary is operating at a low-capacity level, so having the FI program will likely attract more student enrolment at Palmer.

3) McRoberts' FI program is currently running at a relatively low efficiency as more student are dropping FI classes at senior level. So maybe this program will be running more productively at a different school.

4) Palmer's incentive program has been a magnate for many highly talented students across Richmond to attend and hence boost the overall enrolment. So maybe having the FI program will have the same effects on the enrolment

So above are just my opinions and looking forward to hear back from our dedicated trustees